[WarInEur] Units, combat systems & "mobility"

[Karl Gaarsoe]

OK, Some of this is a direct response to Chuck Sutherland, others a general comment on the game systems.

One thing that lets the Board Game "Work" is the simple, well tested, "Tanks move Twice" Combat System.  players should be focused on the broad strategy, NOT making spectacular tactical coups in the context of weekly turns.  This is one of the aspects that has turned me away from Europa, the "Armor Effects" and the presence of any Axis unit that had a few tracked MG carriers, players focus on immediate tactical opportunities, and broader strategy issues take a back seat.  It's still an interesting      , but not as good at simulating Strategic CHOICES as BWiE.

In BWiE, you have WEEKLY turns.  How many other games have sixteen to twenty two turns to "simulate" the summer campaign in 1941 and 1942?

Part of it is the tendency of Gamers to "Maximize" and seek perfect play.  In the various games I have participated in, the really memorable events were the "mistakes" where someone did achieve a breakthrough or something exciting happened.  I don't mean the odd Russian Anti-Tank gun left behind under the German Air Interdiction either.  Yes, it is hard to "pop" the front and achieve Mobile war in the East.  But a lot of the War in the East was grinding, WW I style combat.  Sorry guys, don't believe everything you read in Guderian, von Mellinthin and Manstein.  Or even Guy Sajers Forgotten Soldier.  

And the game has to work (as a game) in BOTH modes.  With the hyper cautious, never allow any mistakes maximizers AND the looser play style I prefer (A timed Move is very helpful there).  

Actually, the divisional Unit count is pretty close to accurate;  I checked the CW and US OB ("Historical"), and all the historical Divisional units (Including assorted CW equipped Exile Formations) are accounted for.  And like I said, it is not the 6/22/41 Soviet Unit Count (Which was/is pretty accurate), but the combat power allocated (SPI bought the version promulgated by the Trio of sources above) and the force generation process.  Yes, some of the Soviet Frontier forces collapsed; But some fought very well and hard, especially in the South.  By the time the weather turned, most of the Panzer Divisions were, er, in game terms, KG.

(For example, those 22 CW 2-10 BG appearing 10/39 (or 9/39) are the 1st  & 2nd Line Territorial Divisions)

What is missing are all the "Support" units.  You want that kind of flavor, play Europa.  The "Support" (Engineers, artillery, etc) are built into the Divisional Counter strength.    Mind you, I am disappointed DG did not include a few 1-3 SS Cavalry Brigades (I can't make White Print on Black counters!).  A little bit of color and entertainment never hurt.  (Cheap Garrisons too)

Of course, there is the special rule that wherever there is an SS Unit, your opponent  can always place (Free) a partisan cadre....  ("Nice     " IS an oxymoron).

It was the mistaken Forward Strategy and the envelopment at (of) Kiev that really caused problems in the late Summer of 1941.

After all, in the historical ("Base Case") they did hang on in Leningrad.  Has anyone ever FAILED to take that city if they really tried?

As for taking Minsk on the first turn of Invasion, OK, maybe;   Part of that is the "Rules as Written" for Soviet Collapse. 

And I can't thing of a single source that covers some of these issues.

Karl Gaarsoe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071113/fa7bde51/attachment.html